Appeal No. 2002-1491
Application 08/845,526
invention. Luken describes the invention of Patent No. 4,912,659 as requiring computational
resources and risks the appearance of pin holes or rips in the surface rendered on the screen
(Column 1, lines 50-54). In the immediately following paragraph, Luken states that none of the
known prior art fully capitalize on NURBS data in evaluating and rendering parametric surfaces
and a need exists for a method and apparatus for evaluating and rendering NURBS data
representative of a parametric surface, in an efficient, accurate and rapid fashion. One with
ordinary skill in the art reading Luken’s specification would see the use of the Bezier model as
something separate and not suggested for use in combination with the steps of Luken’s disclosed
invention. To whatever extent the examiner is arguing that Luken’s discussion of the prior art
suggests that Luken’s disclosed steps should be applied to a Bezier model derived from the
NURBS model, the argument is without merit and rejected.
The examiner should be mindful not to mix Luken’s discussions of its own invention and
Luken’s discussions of the prior art or to regard them as one and the same. It only serves to
generate confusion and does not help to articulate a clear ground or rationale for the rejection. If
Luken’s discussion of Patent No. 4,912,659, particularly as it relates to the use of the Bezier
curve or model, has stirred up the examiner’s curiosity in what specific steps are disclosed in that
reference, the appropriate action would have been to review that reference for any potential
applicability in a proper rejection. On this record, based on the examiner’s stated rationale, there
is no reasonable basis for one with ordinary skill in the art to modify a method according to
Luken’s disclosed invention such that the disclosed steps are applied to a Bezier curve or model.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007